1.1 Argument that Notice of Appeal served in Suit No. 1116 only.
True : but if Court of Appeal ("CA") rules in favour of TLH on
the recusal issue, it necessarily follows that Mareva / Receiver order
avoided which removes the basis of Goh J's order (ie that TLH in breach
of Mareva / Receiver orders).

1.2 Delay in applying for recusal of Lai J : what is at
stake in recusal issue is breach of natural justice which cannot be ignored
or waived by delay. If Lai J was apparently biased, his orders are automatically
avoided, just if made with jurisdiction or ultra vires : Halsbury's
Law 41(1) para 100.

1.3 Relevance of antecedent history : what had transpired
is entirely irrelevant to the recusal issue. No such thing as a trival
breach of natural justice. Court cannot overlook it.

1.4 Early-bird discounts : counsel stressed repeatedly
that no actual corruption / impropriety alleged. True : but what counsel
did not address is argument that the fair comment defence involved TLH
saying that propriety of the transaction is questionable : see the Particulars
at RA2 p98. How could Lai J determine that issue with apparent detachment
?

1.5 Claimed that trenchant criticisms of TLH in judgment
were (a) made after careful consideration and (b) relevant : they are neither.
No time for consideration. What relevance do TLH's honesty and his conduct
of litigation have to issue of apparent bias ? The epithet used are numerous
and venomous and gratuitous.

(b) Costs against JBJ

1.6 In both Arab Monetary Fund and Thatcrhe cases,
CA held that allegations of bias should not be made recklessly and on the
mere say-so or instructions of clients. See pp.150, 151 of former case;
p.168 of latter. Note that in neither case was wasted costs orders made
or asked for.

Facts were that TLH is a professional man ; he swore an
affidavit; he purported to speak from his own knowledge; he was in Hong
Kong. It is utterly unrealistic to criticise JBJ for rendering affidavit.
In point of fact the errors in it are minor.

In standing his ground in face of judicial onslaught,
JBJ acting in best traditions of Counsel's conduct and certainly not acting
improperly.

1.7 The allegation that JBJ should pay costs because his
client accused his Deputy Registrar of impropriety shows how threadbare
is the case against JBJ. All TLH said was that it was unusual for him to
refuse to extend time.

(c) Appeal No. 64 of 1997

1.8 Argument that Mareva / Receiver orders were voidable only and
had not been avoided when Goh J struck out Defence : argument is wrong
in law. "Voidable" means capable of being declared void by party
affected. When judgment or decision is avoided, it retrospectively becomes
void ab initio. So, if the CA finds in favour of TLH on the recusal
issue, the Mareva / Receiver Order will be treated as if void throughout.
So basis for Order of Goh J removed.

1.9 Argument that damage can be increased by reason of
TLH's attacks on judiciary : such attacks may not endear TLH to Court,
but he must not be punished for them because damages are compensation for
the plaintiffs.

(d) Appeal No. 114 of 1997

1.10 Police Report : 2 Separate issues :- (1) why SM and PM released
to press and (2) why fact of release concealed in the Tang's proceedings.
As to (1) explanation of the PM is bizarre (that people would think he
had something to hide if he did not disclose it). As to (2), despite my
clear invitation no explanation forthcoming why police report features
in the claims of the plaintiffs in Suit No. 70, 76 and 82 and the claims
in aggravated damages of the PM and SM and others in the pleadings and
evidence; nor any explanation or excuse why Chao J not informed. No excuse
that TLH did not ask. He had no inkling that SM and PM were behind it.

2. Argument of Mr Davinder Singh SC

2.1 Counsel engaged in prolonged (and selective) review
of facts and procedural history. At the invitation of the Court I desisted
from doing so. The CA is concerned with the clearly identifed issues of
law / principle raised by the appeals. Counsel barely addressed these issues.

2.2 Claimed only 1 suit related to general election :
true, but flavour of all suits highly political.

2.4 Claim that precedent for Mareva in defamation : Chohan
v. Saggar is not a defamation case.

2.5 Claim that bias only affects Suit No. 1116/96. Unrealisitic
submission. Bias certainly affect Suit No.1116/96. But also any proceedings
involving SM and BG Lee. Cannot hive off other actions for trial by another
judge. Moreover, the vituperative comments about TLH in his judgment infect
all actions.

2.6 Claim there were 12 Marevas / Receiver Orders : all
applications heard together submissions by single Counsel; Composite judgment;
Single orderserved on TLH. Respondents cannot now carveComposite
order into 12.

2.8 Police Report : counsel accpeted that (1) J made wrong
finding of fact (2) that J not corrected (3) republication relief on in
Suit 2523/96. But no explanation vouchsafed for reliance on republication
and failure to come clean.

2.9 John v. MGN : dicta unrelated to jury trial rationale
is at p54 : justice and public opinion demand rational and just relationship.
Does Singapore want to go its own way? Carson. ( NB. No counsel
addressed the arguments based on proportionality / cost of living / level
of earnings / chilling effect).

2.10 Suggested overlap not a problem because separate
torts to be considered separately : this submission is simplistic. Where
plaintiff has recovered $X in Suit A, that must reduce damage in Suit B.
The aggravation claims involve double counting. See. S.16 Defamation Act
(R's authorities in Appeal 64 vol 2).

3. Argument of Mr K Shanmugan

3.1 Counsel wrongly claimed position on striking out application
is no different at trial.

3.2 J should simply have looked at pleaded meanings and
asked if denial of those meaning was unarguable. Instead J altered and
elevated the meanings beyond what TLH said.

3.3 Republications apart from Straits Times : clear from
paragraph 56 of the judgment that J took account of these. J was wrong
to do so without giving TLH a hearing.

3.4 Explanation how the PM obtained copy of police report,
namely from Home Affairs Minister : it is highly irregular for a senior
member of the executive to be able to interfere with normal process of
police enquiry by procuring police report cf Criminal Procedure Code.

4. Argument of Mr Wong Meng Meng

4.1 Case of Hunter distinguishable : that was separate
action to undermine final criminal verdict. Public policy.

4.3 In Dimes HL affirmed judgment : true but the
correct analysis is that, if TLH succeeds on the recusal issue, the Mareva
/ Receiver orders are avoided retrospectively (see paragraph 1.8 above),
so that no basis for Goh J's orders at the time he made them. Makes no
difference if CA reimposes Marevas. No argument has been put forward that
the Mareva Order was rightly granted.

4.4 Contention that, if TLH intended the police report
be republished, immaterial that republications procured by PM / SM : no
evidence TLH so intended. Contention is in any event absurd : take example
of boy intending to throw stone through window. Another boy gets in first
and throws stone breaking windows. Does the first boy have to pay damages
for the window he did not break ?